The majority of teachers at my high school will allow late assignments at half (or at least decreased) credit in relation to full (ex: at 50% off, a 75% late assignment would be 37.5% late). There is no deadline for late work other than the grading periods (2 per semester). When they end, no more late work can be put in. Also, for the most part, the kids in my classes do turn in work on time, so very few are the "Duh.. what question are we on?" kind.

herneith:

From what I see, it isn't that work is bad or anything, but that there is a massive lack of interest (who, in the general population, is going to need to know how to figure the radius of a circular prism times Pi*R^2 ... <insert long equation from last semesters Geometry class here>). Personally, I don't mind learning, but don't make me learn things I am not going to ever use. That is probably why I got a 69% in Biology - the class itself was good and somewhat fun, but I had almost no interest in the majority of the subject. In contrast, I got an 86% in Windows Programming, and a 79% in Computer Programming and Tech (and forgot to turn in my 20% Final Project... could have had an A )

Quote

As for pirating software movies, games etc, I suspect it has to do with lack of disposable income. A popular refrain amongst kids I speak with is 'Why buy it if you can get it for free?'. Their reasoning being that they don't have the funds to procure these items. Factor in peer pressure which causes embarrassment and and loss of esteem in some instances. For many, appearances are all such as who has the latest 'thing', you get my drift.

100% true- and when it can be had for free, disposable income (if any) can then be saved for other things that can't be downloaded (like iPods, cell phones, etc). As for peer pressure: Everyone else has the new album from <your favorite band>, and you can get it in 90 seconds via <insert method here> with your friend <name here>'s 5MB broadband internet connection... what's stopping you? 90 seconds and a flash drive later and all you have to do is open iTunes and "Sync"

No, sgtevmckay, while i feel that our generation is raising the next to have this sense of entitlement, I don't *think* that we necessarily share it. Turned 40 myelf a month and a half ago...

I do not know; I remember (yes more memories here), a time not so long ago, when I would here "oh, you have it so much easier than we did........blah blah blah!". I remember getting tired of hearing it.It became a test signal in my ears, if you will.I am certain a lot of folks have heard it, but how many tell there children this today, as opposed to yesteryear

As I understand it, this is contrary to the truth.Today's generation most certainly does not have it easier, in fact they were born in a 24 hour world multi-tasking go go go world, not a 9 to 5. More is expected, less is given, and I constantly find examples of folks today that will not have the opportunities there parents did, or even my parents did.This has been heavily documented in the last few years

I am not saying that, we, our generation, and possibly the one before us, are sharing, but we are learning, as is human nature. as we learn to cope with this brave new world we also seek our integration.

as has been said; when in Rome, do as the Romans do"

Of course this leads to the next inception of thought along these lines.I find, and as I believe a study has been done, that children are now smarter(?) more worldly(?) than their parents. in the last few generations we have stopped looking to traditional areas to learn. Especially when the parents can not help, because they do not know. In this case; do the children lose faith in the prior generation?And has this new attitude created this "Entitled Generation"?There was a time not so long ago, when trades and some education was passed onto the children, the problem today, most parents can not comprehend what their children are doing, and possibly the worst type of mistake; the parents are going to their children to learn.More memories here; I remember when the first digital watches came out, and the school teachers, parents, and parents friends would come to me to program them. I remember the first VCR's and Beta machines, and the adults coming to me to set them up, set the time and the timer. I learned by reading directions until it became second nature for me with technology.I also remember looking down on these people for their inability to learn, or want to learn, I work and live with like minded adults every day.I learned to look down on these folks and despise them. I did not learn to be proud of the work I have done until much later in life.

Some times we learn things at the expense of our morals and character.

It also raises the question; has this generation entitled themselves, because we as adults could not stop them?

I am astounded and amazed that the name "Horatio Bunce" has not surfaced in this debate!

While the "Bunce" link above is of American heritage, the message is applicable to any peoples which must live under the auspices of a political "State." It serves as an education and a warning to free persons anywhere on the globe.

I am especially fond of this part of Mr. Bunce's wisdom...

"... In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes."

May I suggest that creating entitlements are not "legitimate purposes" of government.

To get squarely back on topic... No, they ("The entitled generation"), are not right. The very nature of entitlements require someone (The "Provider") to work for something that they are mandated not to be able to keep so it can be mandated to give to someone else (The "Consumer").

Because the "Providers" are forced to give up the fruit of their labor by legislation, the "entitlements" are no different from a "wad of bills" that a bank robber might pitch at you as he speeds away from the scene of the crime.

I hear you Wreckedcarzz. If it's any consolation, kids today aren't that different from those of yore. My 95 year old grandmother regaled me with tales of the youth in her time. It appears that smoking and drinking moonshine liquor was their thing. There was also the stories of girls who left town for a year or so to take care of an 'elderly relative' when in fact the girls were pregnant out of wedlock and left town to have the child. They would return when they thought the air was clear but everyone knew or had an inkling as to what was going on. You see the kids were not that different than they are today. People tend to have selective memories. If it's any consolation, each preceding generation has similar complaints about the next one. According to my grandmother, great-aunt and various relatives from previous generations the young people in their respective generations were not that different than they are today. The only things lacking were the technologies, economic times( The Depression, World War II, rationing etc) They just adapted and made due with what they had. My grandmother in fact told me of a girl in her circle of friends who had a fur coat and believe me they were quite envious of this girl. These stories were, are anecdotal, but I bet if you were to speak to multi-generational persons they would have interesting tales to tell. The stories my grandmother relayed to me were apparently tame according to other family members. The only thing I can say is that they were more secretive in nature. As for not needing to know or being able to utilize some of the learning in your schooling now, you will find the same thing when you embark upon whatever profession you have or will choose. There will be aspects of your employment where you shake you head and say what use is this, school prepares you for this. You never know, you may need some of the 'useless' knowledge someday.

Call it theft, liberation, entitlement, borrowing, or what have you - is the rate at which such activities occur fairly constant? And if so, does that indicate that there's a certain (relatively fixed) percentage of the population that's comfortable with 'just taking' something if they can? Because if that's the case, the reasons given for 'why' almost become moot.

My Grandfather used to say that there are basically three types of people that make up the general population

The Makers

The Takers

The Fakers

Maybe this debate is just another example of the dichotomy between those who actually make things as opposed to those who merely use things?

Don't. It does not have anything to do with new vs. old generations, and more with what each person considers the 'right thing to do'. My oldest brother is probably part of your generation, and he would agree with your friend's daughter (regarding the part of getting culture without paying for it at least, never had a discussion with him over the ethical issues and everything else). So does many people of his generation, heck, even much older people, like sgtevmckay said.

Your friend's daughter sounds to be in the "I'm fighting the system" school of thought, which is just another way to justify something that can't be justified. Most people I know fall in the "They have enough money" camp and, of course, "If it's free, why not?". I'm not saying the current system is cool and nice, quite the opposite, but citing fair use to share a song with a friend when you mean downloading entire discographies (effectively redefining "fair use") is not helping anyone.

That said, there's probably some fairness depending on what you're getting for free. I never considered to be a crime or even something questionable from an ethical point of view to grab an album of certain group to know them, or to grab movies or TV content because they're unavailable in your region. Many people do that (including myself) and would gladly pay for it if there was some other way to get it. It's simply a way of taking advantage of technology to overcome old hurdles that content distributors (and creators sometimes) continue to have in place. In a world like ours nowadays, things like regional restrictions do not make sense at all. As I said before, everyone is getting it (with music, the issue is practically settled thanks to Amazon, iTunes or Spotify), so good for them and for us.

But trying to downplay artists relevance compared with the rest of us is quite unfair, even more considering that it's not always their fault all these things are happening, although judging by comments here and there this is where the majority is trying to make us believe. I wonder how we reached this point, that is, it's perfectly acceptable not to pay for something you like and want. I assume these people do like or would like to be paid for their jobs, it's the logical thing in our society. How is it any different with culture? You have to pay for all those hours in the studio working on your new songs, and film crews do have a salary. Probably no one part of the entitled generation cares to think about it (age-wise, I'm supposed to be part of it as well :-D)

Seeing as everyone is probably about to jump all over me, I should point out that we (myself, and the people I know) still DO buy software. Lots of kids play World of Warcraft, and buy the expansions + paying for the monthly subscription. Last Friday I overheard two Mac kids in my English class talking about the girl's new "copy of iLife '09 in a bundle with Leopard." In regard to myself, a good example is that I have purchased every copy of Need for Speed I have in my possession (Undercover was not worth it though ).

Bad examples, really . While you can play WoW in private servers thus not paying for the subscription, you're missing all the fun on public ones. And I ignore how the girl got his copy of Leopard + iLife, but IIRC it comes bundled with Apple computers, so those two cases show how people will pay for something if there is no other way to get it (WoW and an Apple computer, respectively). Actually, every Mac user I know has iLife but no one paid for it.

Don't. It does not have anything to do with new vs. old generations, and more with what each person considers the 'right thing to do'. My oldest brother is probably part of your generation, and he would agree with your friend's daughter (regarding the part of getting culture without paying for it at least, never had a discussion with him over the ethical issues and everything else). So does many people of his generation, heck, even much older people, like sgtevmckay said....

I am not comfortable with a blanket, "Don't." Here is why...

What is being debated here is a "learned" behavior, but only to degrees. What I mean is we come into this world kicking and screaming totally unaware that others worth consideration are present. Consider for a moment how selfish those cute and cuddly infants really are to everyone around them? What if, instead of being a tiny infant, reproduction was based on an "organism division" (like cell division) where the "baby" emerged as a full-grown physical body, but did not have the maturity to regulate itself? Shelley's "Frankenstein" gives us a glimpse into this. Imagine if the "child" wanted the hot skillet. How would this adult-sized "toddler" respond to your well-meaning, loving and emphatic, "No! Do not touch! It will hurt the baby!" The answer is that "baby" would do what every other baby does. He/she will use everything in its power to get what it wants, only this time the "baby" is as big as you and with no moral restraint. Not a pretty sight! The "baby" would not have any qualms in destroying you if it means it could get what it wants. The "baby" has to learn to be considerate of others.

The partial statement, "... what each person considers the 'right thing to do...." is what I am specifically referring to. My "baby" mentioned above has not yet learned the "right" thing to do and those around suffer for it.

Now, in regard to "...the 'right thing to do..." if the preceding generation does not help the succeeding generation (or in some cases, visa-versa) to learn how to be considerate of the rights of others, the only natural outcome is for the succeeding generation to become accustomed to having their own way. Unless checked, this behavior will find its way into the essence of their being. They will, in fact, be convinced that they can have whatever they want and no one had better say, "No!"

I do agree that this can not be over-simplified to an "us versus them" in regard to generations. That would be bigoted prejudice, but to nullify the cause-and-effect relationship from one generation to another is problematical to grasping the essence of this discussion.